Back
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A.No.4663/2018
Thursday, this the 20th day of December 2018
Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman
Hon’ble Mr. K.N. Shrivastava, Member (A)
Neeraj Singh (Group A)
S/o Dr. Tribhuwan Singh
Aged about 50 years
Presently CIT (Audit) Mumbai
On leave due to cancer surgery
r/o C/o P-16, Andrews Ganj Extension
New Delhi – 110 049
..Applicant
(Mr. Nilansh Gaur, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India through its Secretary (Revenue)
North Block, New Delhi
2. Central Board of Direct Taxes
Through its Chairman
North Block, New Delhi
3. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax
3rd floor, Aayakar Bhawan
New Marine Lines
Mumbai – 400026
..Respondents
(Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate)
O R D E R (ORAL)
Justice L. Narasimha Reddy:
The applicant is working as Commissioner of Income Tax
at Mumbai. Through an Office Order No.166/2018 dated
09.10.2018, general transfers were effected in respect of 69
officers. The applicant herein was transferred as Departmental
Representative (DR) in ITAT, Chennai. He filed O.A.
No.3935/2018 stating that he is undergoing treatment for
cancer at Mumbai under a specialist and the transfer in the
middle of the academic year would also bring hardship to him
and his family. Other grounds were also urged.
2. O.A. No.3935/2018 was disposed of on 15.10.2018
directing the respondents to dispose of the representation dated
10.10.2018 submitted by the applicant through speaking order.
In compliance with the same, an order dated 15.11.2018 was
passed. It was observed that the applicant has stayed for a
period of exceeding 10 years at Mumbai at different spells and
the transfer is warranted on administrative grounds. It was
communicated to the applicant on 17.12.2018. The same is
challenged in the instant O.A.
3. We heard Mr. Nilansh Gaur, learned counsel for applicant
and Mr. Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel for respondents.
4. The grounds, which were urged by the applicant in O.A.
No.3935/2018, are virtually repeated in this O.A. The transfer
of the applicant in not an isolated one. The general transfers
were made, duly taking into account the various aspects, such
as stay of the officers at Headquarters/Stations, the need at
different Stations and the ability of officers to discharge
respective functions. It is no doubt true that the applicant is
undergoing treatment for cancer at Mumbai. However, it
cannot be ignored that the Chennai is also a place where the
facilities for such treatment are available. In case the applicant
needs treatment in the hands of specialist at Mumbai, he can
make periodical visits for that purpose. We are not impressed
by that ground to interfere with the order of transfer.
5. Another contention advanced on behalf of the applicant is
that on account of operation done to the tongue and other parts
of his mouth, it would not be possible for him to speak fluently
and the DR is required to argue the case extensively. This aspect
does not appear to have been addressed by the respondents.
Even while keeping the order of transfer intact, the respondents
can be required to consider the feasibility of entrusting the
applicant any duties other than that of DR.
6. We, therefore, dispose of the O.A. upholding the order of
transfer but directing the respondents to consider the feasibility
of entrusting the applicant any duties other than that of
Departmental Representative.
There shall be no order as to costs.
( K.N. Shrivastava ) ( Justice L. Narasimha Reddy )
Member (A)
Chairman
December 20, 2018
/sunil/
